As expected Trump claims election is being stolen from him

Post Reply New Topic

Blah, blah, blah. Just cynicism and personal attacks. You don't become superior to me by attacking me personally.




The house impeachment will always stand.



Fake news. You are drinking the Trump cool aide. But nice to know you are fine with illegal act as long as someone else does it. But I would not expect anything less from you using whataboutism.



So is that why he assassinated an Iranian general in Iraq because he thought if would reduce the risk of war. Also, Trump has not ended a single involvement in any oversees war to date.



No.



Well, as you say, Trump did a lot in his four years. I think we are all tired of it.

[/quote]

For activities prior to their roles, rather than while in those roles (or, in one ongoing case, as what appears, based on recently declassified records, to have been a targtetted attack on the person involved).

And the record will show that this did not succeed, so meaningless.

Setting aside the precedent set by the retention of aid until a certain prosecutor was fired which occurred under a prior regime, the foreign leader being "pressured" was unaware of the aid "being withheld", demonstrating that no pressure was applied (hence they were not pressured)...

Not certain what specifically is referred to here...

How long did it take the "intelligence" services to determine that a report used to investigate his campaign was factually deficient?

Would that have been the result of other signatories not having abided by the treaties, and so harming the U.S.A.'s interests?

On the theory that you are referring to NEPA - Wouldn't it make more sense for individual, targetted "environmental impact" reviews to be done on individual components (and so reflect that one part), rather than large, vague statements regarding an overall project which would be more likely to miss details due to the complexity of the reports? In this way, it is also easier and quicker to make changes to the problematic part of the project, while allowing those other areas without issues to proceed.

Guessing this refers to "Bear Ears" (created under the prior regime, in the final weeks before leaving office), this alteration to the size of the park came at the request of the state legislature, and the state's governor, indicating its "elevation" to national park was not in the interest of\nor wanted by those affected.

Both this and (what I believe was the second park to which you refer) Grand Staircase-Escalante were decreased in size as a result of this overriding of the people's wishes by the prior regime, under a "requirement that reservations of land not exceed 'the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'"

Or in simple terms: he decreased the park size so that it was applicable to the reason for the park being created. Given the land did not contribute towards the reason for the park's existance, there was no legitimate reason for it to be a part of the park. Had the parks been created under some other "reason"\categorisation, then perhaps this would not have occured: in which case the problem lies with those who tried to pad out the park size with land that had no legitimate reason to be included.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument

Effectiveness (or lack thereof) would only become apparent once complete (given there are areas where the barriers are of minimal deternt value)


Directly, possibly not. Indirectly, unknown.

Continuing the policies of the previous (Obama) regime...

Suggesting that the "Parents" who brought them may not have actually been the children's parents...

If you watch the footage, he was aksing medical people beside him whether something like an ingestible disinfectant was possible to produce, and not directed to the audience as a suggestion tfor them to follow.

He went with what the W.H.O. guidance was. The national responce was restricted, also, due to state\federal areas of responsibility, hence vastly differing outcomes on a state-by-state comparison.

There was also the minor issue of the "house" disrupting the ability for this to be focussed on through their pet "impeachment" project, and the commentry from the Democrat side that the was nothing to be concerned about (Compare the reactions from both sides in a contemporary manner, rather than using selective hindsight).

Given that it is the role of congress to work with the President, this is equally the responsibility of the members of Congress who were unwilling to negotiate with him in order to find a mutually accewptabel solution which could have prevented the shut-down.

Doing anything the the Chinese government disprove of would have resulted in a similar responce (Australia is currently being hit because our government doesn't bend over for them) - If a country is suffering from unfavourable actions taken by another with regards to trade, they are within their rights to try and achieve a better\more equitable arrangement.

Given this affects those in the military, the verdict on whether they approve or not is what is relevent, not what the general public think of this, so it would be interesting to see what they think of it...

Because the approach from the previous regime was working so well?

Some examples would assit with evaluating this claim.

Please do. I believe, to begin with, that there were some peace deals in the middle-east...


To quote one of your prior Presidents:
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Given the number of stories about people in government working to prevent a legitimately elected President from carrying out the tasks which people elected him to perform, what reason would people have to trust the government (from either side) when this could happen to future Presidents of either side in the future.


And yet, a former failed candidate was calling for Mr Biden to do the very same thing (and was applauded in the media, and from her side of politics, for doing so):

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-says-biden-shouldn-t-concede-under-any-circumstances/ar-BB18mJm1

And all that against a hostile media and with publicised examples of people within government actively working to prevent his work in areas which were the reason a large number of people voted for him...Imagine how much better things could have been if those from the other side of politics had tried to work\compromise with him, rather than blindly oppose him at every opportunity.

So anyone who spots flaws in anti-trump rhetoric is drinking "cool-aid" eh? Lol.

BTW Jiheisho, Fnord and whoever else is going by script, it's spelled "Kool-aid".

You are talking out of your bottom.
Evidence, please.
I see no suggestion, anywhere in the media, that the progressives have not been anything but supportive of Trump. <irony>

Well, you are being naive, if you think there isn't a great deal of corruption in politics, on both sides of the political divide.
All that is required is simple observation.

And, the only reason Trump got in, in the first place, is that too many people didn't trust either side of the political aristocracy.

Trump did not win.
Hillary lost.

Locked for bickering, snark, and attacks.